Global Cooling?

[Magox]

Honestly, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on this matter one way or the other, but I'm leaning on bull **** to Global Warming.

 

Recent data is showing that actually temperatures have been dropping since the beginning of this decade.

 

http://www.heartland.org/publications/envi..._Alarmists.html

 

Global temperatures in 2009 are continuing a nearly decade-long decline, with June readings from NASA satellites showing temperatures below 1980 levels.

 

NASA satellites first began measuring global temperatures in 1979. The readings are precise and not influenced by local land use changes and urban growth that corrupt data from ground-based temperature stations.

 

 

Carbon Dioxide Disconnect

 

Global temperatures have been falling since the end of 2001, defying alarmists’ assertions that carbon dioxide emissions are the primary driver of global temperatures. Global carbon dioxide emissions have continued rising since 2001.

 

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet, but scientists disagree over whether it plays a major role in global temperature fluctuations.

 

All other things being equal, a full doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would raise global temperatures merely 1 degree Celsius, scientists report. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by less than 50 percent since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

 

 

Powerful Feedback

 

Alarmists theorize the small warming they say is caused by carbon dioxide emissions can trigger higher atmospheric relative humidity and more prevalent upper-level cirrus clouds, which would then bring substantial additional warming. Without that feedback effect, computer models predict little future warming.

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration measurements dating back several decades show there has been no increase in atmospheric relative humidity, even while atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased. Similarly, NASA instruments show there has been no increase in upper-level cirrus clouds in conjunction with the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The positive feedback loops asserted by global warming alarmists have failed to materialize.

 

 

Solar and Ocean Cycles

 

Instead of behaving according to the alarmists’ feedback hypothesis, global temperatures have continued to follow closely fluctuations in solar output and ocean circulation cycles, not carbon dioxide trends. Solar output measurements by scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics show a near-perfect fit between twentieth century solar output and twentieth century temperature trends.

 

Solar output has declined this decade, again showing a strong correlation with global temperatures.

 

In addition, University of Alabama-Huntsville professor Dr. Roy Spencer, who oversees the NASA program that measures global temperature via satellite, has published data showing a very strong correlation between global temperatures and cyclical oscillations in Pacific and Atlantic Ocean currents. Whether solar activity plays a role in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean current oscillations is still unknown.

 

 

Scientists Debunk CO2 Theory

 

William Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, noted, “Accurately modeling the global ocean’s deep circulation is fundamental to any realistic understanding of global temperature change. Such global deep-water circulation patterns are the primary control of global surface temperature. The global warming we have seen since the mid-1970s to 1999 and over the last 100 years is largely due to reductions in the rate of global ocean deep-water circulation—or Meridional Overturning Circulation—which has occurred. This circulation is driven by global ocean salinity variations. CO2 changes play no role in these ocean changes.”

 

Dr. Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, agrees the contribution of CO2 is minute at most.

 

“Based on my research, I tend to support a very, very strong role by the sun as a climate driver. If you were to ask me about the role of CO2, I would say it’s very, very small,” said Soon.

[Magox]

And then this:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

Scientists' e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public

 

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world's foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

 

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

 

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

 

But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

 

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

 

In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.

 

Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.

 

[KD in CA]

Recent data is showing that actually temperatures have been dropping since the beginning of this decade.

 

Quick, change the power point. Tell the idiots they now need to buy 'Carbon Debits'.

 

 

[DC Tom]

And then this:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

Scientists' e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public

 

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world's foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

 

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

 

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

 

But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

 

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

 

In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.

 

Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.

 

 

 

Already discussed, somewhere here. And as I pointed out the first time: that's just how science is done.

[Chef Jim]

Quick, change the power point. Tell the idiots they now need to buy 'Carbon Debits'.

 

 

 

No this is why they changed the crisis from global warming to climate change. Pretty much covers everything.

[Magox]

No this is why they changed the crisis from global warming to climate change. Pretty much covers everything.

I hadn't noticed that, good point.

[drnykterstein]

i still don't know how dumb you have to be to think that mankind has not had a dramatic effect on the earths climate. i would wager that it's somewhere below the intelligence of a monkey, and above that of magox.

 

and no recent data is not showing that temperatures are dropping. but dumb people who don't know how to collect and assess data very probably think it's dropping.

[Alaska Darin]

i still don't know how dumb you have to be to think that mankind has not had a dramatic effect on the earths climate. i would wager that it's somewhere below the intelligence of a monkey, and above that of magox.

 

and no recent data is not showing that temperatures are dropping. but dumb people who don't know how to collect and assess data very probably think it's dropping.

There's a large difference between "having a dramatic effect" on the earth's environment (notice I didn't say climate). Global Warming is a charade and always has been.

 

Your final "sentence" is ridiculous and I doubt you know anything at all about the subject.

[swede316]

i still don't know how dumb you have to be to think that mankind has not had a dramatic effect on the earths climate. i would wager that it's somewhere below the intelligence of a monkey, and above that of magox.

 

and no recent data is not showing that temperatures are dropping. but dumb people who don't know how to collect and assess data very probably think it's dropping.

Really, How about all of the climate changes before there were humans on the planet? Multiple mass extintions have been blamed on climate change...Just so happens we weren't around. maybe we are going through a change...If it is...It's not do to us. Just the Earth's cycle. Read up on your geology and paleontolgy and you'll see I'm right!

[sweet baboo]

you want me to fix things by going into my backyard and burning a bunch of brush?

 

I'll do that...just for you guys

[LaDairis]

Temperature changes must be statistically significant and planetary to justify a real "cooling or warming" label. The obsession of watching every tick up and down with temperatures gathered just on the surface of growing urban areas is laughable.

 

 

The truth is that the planet Earth has experienced no statistically significant temperature change since humans first chucked a spear...

[Magox]

i still don't know how dumb you have to be to think that mankind has not had a dramatic effect on the earths climate. i would wager that it's somewhere below the intelligence of a monkey, and above that of magox.

Coming from your point of view, I'll take that with a smile

[drnykterstein]

Really, How about all of the climate changes before there were humans on the planet?

 

Those happened also. I don't see how many brain cell you have to be missing to think that has anything to do with the current effect humans have upon the global temperatures, atmosphere, and climate.

 

Read up on your geology and paleontolgy and you'll see I'm right!

who the hell is saying temperatures did not fluctuate in the past? You are right. You are also a simpleton.

[The Big Cat]

How bout we just live a more Earth-friendly life regardless of what science tells us about the state of the global climate?

[Magox]

How bout we just live a more Earth-friendly life regardless of what science tells us about the state of the global climate?

ok, but at what cost? and to what extent?

[The Big Cat]

ok, but at what cost? and to what extent?

 

It's much more advantageous to private businesses to "greenify" their practices. A **** ton in overhead, no doubt. But long term benefits galore.

 

Every major company should have a LEED certified headquarters. Studies show green buildings not only cut down on operational expenses, but they have soft-benefits as well, like enhancing worker productivity.

 

That's just one answer.

 

But I'd like to turn this one back on you (it's just how I've grown accustom to our virtual relationship playing-out). What's the cost of not having an earth-friendly lifestyle?

 

I'll get ya started.

[Booster4324]

ok, but at what cost? and to what extent?

 

There's the rub. Many agree that we should do things that are more environmentally friendly. I personally favor a simpler approach, cutting out use of paper (there is however a carbon footprint for e-mails and websites and such) and office usage of things that are non recyclable (within reason and on a cost basis). Recycling as much as you can is important.

[kegtapr]

i still don't know how dumb you have to be to think that mankind has not had a dramatic effect on the earths climate. i would wager that it's somewhere below the intelligence of a monkey, and above that of magox.

 

and no recent data is not showing that temperatures are dropping. but dumb people who don't know how to collect and assess data very probably think it's dropping.

 

And I still don't know how dumb you have to be to beleive humans have any more of an impact on the earth, then a fly has on a cows ass. Apparently right around conner levels.

 

We don't even come close to the power of the natural cycles. Sure, we can all be better stewards, but to think we have that great of an impact ranks right up there with the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. An arrogant species we are.

[Magox]

It's much more advantageous to private businesses to "greenify" their practices. A **** ton in overhead, no doubt. But long term benefits galore.

 

Every major company should have a LEED certified headquarters. Studies show green buildings not only cut down on operational expenses, but they have soft-benefits as well, like enhancing worker productivity.

 

That's just one answer.

 

But I'd like to turn this one back on you (it's just how I've grown accustom to our virtual relationship playing-out). What's the cost of not having an earth-friendly lifestyle?

 

I'll get ya started.

As booster has pointed out, recycling is a good place to start, energy conservation, vehicles that run off of natural gas, more nuclear energy, these are some areas that I believe that can help with becoming much more environmentally friendly.

 

However, the alarmists for "Global Warming" goes way overboard, and guys like Gore, stand to make BILLIONS, that's right, not Millions but BILLIONS on pieces of legislation like Cap and Trade.

 

So I am absolutely against Cap and Trade, it is estimated that it will cost the average family any where between $150 to $1200 a year in added energy costs and according to the CBO and EIA that it will cost us anywhere between 200,000 to 1.2 million jobs.

 

To go back on the "Global Warming" alarmist arguments, here is a piece from the Washington Post today

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

 

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

 

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

 

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

 

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

 

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "

 

The fact that temperatures have been dropping not rising over the past decade in my view is a clear sign that things aren't as dire as the climate alarmists have been making it out to be.

 

It doesn't make sense to have these sweeping policies that change the whole fabric of how life is here in the U.S and that same argument isn't just for Cap and Trade but for Health Care Reform. What we should do is intelligent, effective incremental change that won't hurt our ailing economy.

 

In both of these reforms, it adds taxes and costs to small businesses, adds taxes to an array of different outlets, adds to the deficit and adds further costs to most households in the U.S and these aren't just my words, but of the opinions of many non partisan groups.

 

Do you believe we should follow through with Cap and Trade?

[KD in CA]

And I still don't know how dumb you have to be to beleive humans have any more of an impact on the earth, then a fly has on a cows ass. Apparently right around conner levels.

 

We don't even come close to the power of the natural cycles. Sure, we can all be better stewards, but to think we have that great of an impact ranks right up there with the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. An arrogant species we are.

 

That is the crux of this entire debate. The foolishness and arrogance of man is an eternal constant, no matter what the advances in science and technology.